Closed captions transcript:

00:00:28
Yes, Mr. Nice. Your Honour, before we get
on with the evidence, there are one or two

00:00:53
procedural matters that I must ask the Chamber
to deal with pretty well immediately. It may

00:01:02
be that if I identify the issues now, either
as to all or some, the Chamber would think

00:01:08
it most helpful to come back to them later
in the morning, either at the beginning of

00:01:11
the last session or at the end of last session,
although dealing with things at the end of

00:01:15
the last session is always a problem because
we always run out of time. The first three

00:01:21
matters are very short and can be dealt with
in public session and then there are two very

00:01:25
short -- two matters to be dealt with, with
your leave, in private session. The first,

00:01:32
then, topic is the 92 bis applications or
the 92 bis position as to certain witnesses.

00:01:41
I sought to raise the issue of Mr. Hendrie
yesterday and got it wrong. The position is

00:01:47
that his first but not his second statement
have been approved for 92 bis, and though

00:01:52
Mr. Ryneveld will be taking and can deal with
that, we would be grateful for your ruling

00:01:56
in relation to that. Next Monday, K6 returns.
On whom we've already made a ruling. And -- yes.

00:02:09
He's returning and, as I understand it, will
be able to give evidence with facial distortion

00:02:15
and pseudonym. The question arises as to the
92 bis potential for that witness. William

00:02:27
Walker arrives on -- Just pausing there. I
think from our usual rulings in respect of

00:02:35
witnesses of that type, I would be inclined
to say that he was someone who should give

00:02:40
evidence live. As Your Honour pleases. In
effect, if the Chamber changes its mind or

00:02:45
expresses a different view, perhaps you'd
be good enough to let us know. William Walker

00:02:51
has made himself available at short notice
and at personal inconvenience to come on Sunday

00:02:58
night, I think, for arrival after a long jet
flight here, on Monday morning, with a view

00:03:06
to being taken as a witness on Tuesday. We
would be asking the Chamber to consider those

00:03:15
parts of his statement that may cover territory
already covered by others to be subject to

00:03:23
92 bis and to save valuable court time and
to minimise the inconvenience to him. Perhaps

00:03:30
we can return to those issues. But insofar
as they are outstanding, that would be Walker,

00:03:37
I suspect, at the end of the morning. Mr.
Nice, if we granted 92 bis for those parts

00:03:43
that you think are, forgive the expression,
92 bis'able, how long would his examination-in-chief

00:03:52
be? I'll have to come back to you on that
later this morning as well. If you'll give

00:03:57
me leave to come back on that; I can't give
an actual estimate at the moment. We ought

00:04:06
clearly, then, to deal with Witness K6 on
Monday, if at all possible. K6 on Monday.

00:04:11
There are implications for others who have
to look after him and so on. And that, incidentally,

00:04:20
may involve -- yes, I'm grateful for being
reminded. It's possible that that would involve

00:04:26
putting back two witnesses, Ramadani and Avdyli,
although I'm anxious not to do so because

00:04:32
they've already been here in The Hague for
some time. Depends on whether we get through

00:04:39
to them today. Unlikely. Can we go into private
session for two topics? Will it be sensible

00:04:47
to deal with Mr. Hendrie's second statement,
and also -- on the 92 bis point? And also,

00:04:56
I have in mind the statements of Messrs. Jemini,
Popaj, Ramadani, and Avdyli as being admissible

00:05:07
under Rule 92 bis and it might be sensible
to take them all. Yes. Well, subject to anything

00:05:21
the accused has to say on the matter and he
should be heard we propose to admit the statements

00:05:27
of Mr. Hendrie, both statements, and the statements
of those witnesses I've read out, under Rule

00:05:34
92 bis. Mr. Milosevic, is there anything you
want to say about that? I have a general remark

00:05:45
to make in view of the fact that my cross-examination
time has been shortened by your bis Rule where

00:05:52
statements are given in writing, testimony
is given in writing, that this very seriously

00:05:58
limits my possibilities of cross-examining
the witnesses in the interests of truth. And

00:06:06
the second point is that I still haven't received
William Walker's statement. I hear that he's

00:06:10
going to be here on Tuesday, is he? It's Friday
today, as you well know. We will raise that.

00:06:17
Thirdly, my third point: You still haven't
given me an answer, although I asked you twice,

00:06:24
you promised to respond, to my question, the
following: My associate who has taken it upon

00:06:32
himself to calculate all this, told me that
we received 70.000 pages of documents this

00:06:38
week, 200 videotapes, some 50-odd audiotapes,
and I don't know what else, not counting all

00:06:47
the little bits and pieces that I find on
my table here this morning. But my question

00:06:52
was to you: When do you expect me to read
through those 70.000 pages, look at the 200

00:06:58
videotapes and listen to the 50 audiotapes?
And the answer is this, as I told you: It's

00:07:07
a matter which we are considering. The window
of opportunity, if I can use that expression,

00:07:17
will occur in the summer. We shall stop sitting
on the Kosovo case on the 26th of July. There

00:07:32
will be then at least three weeks, and we'll
consider the necessary time for you to prepare

00:07:40
for the other matter. Now, it may be that
Croatia and Bosnia can be split. I'm not sure

00:07:52
if it can in terms of preparation or whether
in fact they are so entwined that it can't

00:08:00
be. Your Honour, I'm happy to give some preliminary
indications but loath to take time. I think

00:08:09
the Chamber and the accused may be helped
by knowing that my intention is to have a

00:08:15
list of witnesses prepared for both cases.
I hope to have a reasonably accurate running

00:08:26
list of witnesses to be prepared by about
the end of next week, and I suspect that you

00:08:32
will find that a very large number of those
witnesses in the early stages will cover both

00:08:39
cases. Therefore, splitting them in any hermetic
way might not be realistic. And you will indicate,

00:08:47
will you, what -- which of those witnesses
could be subject to Rule 92 bis? Certainly.

00:08:55
Of course. We are moving some way now from
the point. So the answer is, Mr. Milosevic,

00:09:01
that we have in mind that question of time
and your having the necessary time to prepare

00:09:08
for the next stage of the case. We will admit
the statements under Rule 92 bis. Returning

00:09:18
to Mr. Walker, when will the statement be
available? I'll find out the detail of service,

00:09:23
if there's been no service, and come back
to it later this morning, if I may. Yes. I

00:09:28
mean, clearly something should be available
tonight or earlier. Yes, of course. So the

00:09:35
accused can have it over the weekend. It may
be convenient, before we go into closed or

00:09:43
private session, to deal with the documents
we've been handed, the exhibits, the outstanding

00:09:52
exhibits which the accused asked to be admitted.
They are numbered D14, 18, is there a 19?

00:10:07
D14 to D19. Now, unless there's any Prosecution
objection, we propose to admit them. We will

00:10:21
go into private session. Yes. Private session]
redacted) redacted) Pages 6467 to 6470 – redacted

00:10:24
private session. redacted) redacted) redacted)
redacted) redacted) redacted) redacted) redacted)

00:10:25
redacted) redacted) redacted) redacted) redacted)
redacted) redacted) redacted) redacted) redacted)

00:10:25
redacted) redacted) redacted) Open session]
Your Honour, our records reveal that Ambassador

00:10:26
Walker's statement of the 16th of May of 1999
was part of the supporting material disclosed

00:10:33
in respect of the indictment. The second statement,
unsigned, our records show to have been disclosed

00:10:44
on the 27th of May. I'll check for receipts
in respect of that over the breaks. And -- Have

00:11:00
you got some copies? We can sort that out
by the break. Yes. Are we in open session?

00:11:14
Yes, we are. The Prosecution calls Ian Robert
Hendrie. The witness entered court] Let the

00:12:24
witness take the declaration. I solemnly declare
that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,

00:12:31
and nothing but the truth. If you'd like to
take a seat. IAN ROBERT HENDRIE Examined by

00:12:43
Mr. Ryneveld: Mr. Hendrie, could you tell
the Court your full name, please. Ian Robert

00:12:48
Hendrie. And, Mr. Hendrie, do I understand
correctly, sir, that you are currently 42

00:12:53
years old? I am. And you have a background
as a detective in both the Royal Hong Kong

00:13:01
and the London Metropolitan Police forces;
is that correct? It is, yes. Now, sir, did

00:13:08
there come a time in 1997 or 1998 when you
served one of the offices of the United Nations

00:13:18
in the Balkans? Between October 1997 to October
1998, I served in the International Police

00:13:24
Task Force in Bosnia. And later on, in December
of 1998, were you involved with the OSCE/KVM

00:13:34
mission? In November 1998, I joined the United
Kingdom Diplomatic Observer Mission and then

00:13:42
joined the OSCE in December of 1998. Thank
you. Now, sir, I'd ask you to direct or focus

00:13:55
your remarks at this point to an incident
on the 16th of January, 1999. Did something

00:14:03
happen that day that took you to the village
of Racak? I was informed on the morning of

00:14:09
the 16th that an incident had taken place
at a village of Racak on the previous day.

00:14:17
And did you, in fact, as a result of that
information, travel to Racak along with other

00:14:23
individuals? I did, Your Honour, yes. And
just very briefly, I'd ask you to tell us

00:14:31
what you did when you got there. We arrived
at about midday at a checkpoint of the KLA

00:14:40
on the edge of the village. After negotiating
through the checkpoints, I was shown around

00:14:51
the village and saw various sites where I
saw bodies. I photographed and made observations

00:15:04
on what I saw. Your Honours, in view of the
92 bis procedure, I propose now to read a

00:15:13
brief summary contained in paragraphs 3 through
13, and then I want to return for a few questions

00:15:21
under paragraph 14. You took a number of photographs,
as you've indicated. Your Honours, you will

00:15:33
find that those photographs are contained
in the Racak binder, binder 1 of 5, which

00:15:41
have been marked an exhibit, and they can
be found immediately behind tab 5 of that

00:15:47
binder. Yes. Have we got an exhibit number
for the statements? I have a couple of questions

00:15:53
on that yet, if I may. Very well. Now, sir,
you gave statements to the members of the

00:15:59
ICTY firstly on the 25th of February 1999;
is that correct? That's correct. And you attended

00:16:08
before a presiding officer of the Tribunal
on the th of February, 2002 and indicated

00:16:17
or made a solemn declaration that that statement
was true and correct to the best your information,

00:16:23
knowledge, and belief? Yes, Your Honour. Did
you also give a second statement, on the 15th

00:16:29
of December, and go through the same solemn
declaration proceedings on the 28th of May

00:16:36
of this year? Yes, I did, Your Honour. Might
those exhibits -- or those statements be given

00:16:44
exhibit numbers at this point. Prosecution
Exhibit 214 and 214 for the redacted version.

00:16:53
Excuse me, 214A for the redacted version.
Thank you. Your Honours, by way of a very

00:17:03
brief summary: In his statements, the witness
indicates that he was originally initially

00:17:13
shown the body of someone identified to him
as Banush which reports in his statement at

00:17:20
scene 1. Now, for benefit of the Court and
in terms of some diagrams and I believe the

00:17:27
large maps that were in these court proceedings
taken by Mr. Kelly, those are referred to

00:17:34
on those documents as CL1, that's location
one, scene 1. I just thought I would relate

00:17:40
the scenes in his statement to the other descriptors
that you have. He was shown a uniformed KLA

00:17:48
soldier -- by a KLA soldier, a courtyard where
a man named Bidi Banush identified the headless

00:17:55
body of Azem Banush, and later, at the morgue,
this body was labelled as RA-1. Then he was

00:18:05
at scene 2, which is location 2, scenes 2
and 3. A man maimed Ismail Beqiri informed

00:18:15
him of the location of the bodies of three
brothers, Arif, Sabri, and Haki Syla, who

00:18:20
had all been shot. A short distance from this
location, he was shown the body of Hajriz

00:18:27
Jakujsi, who had also been shot. At scene
3, which is location 2, scene 4, he was brought

00:18:36
to a family compound consisting of two houses
where the body of Ahmet Mustafa, who was apparently

00:18:43
around 70 years old, was identified to him.
He appeared to have been shot several times

00:18:49
and was later identified with the morgue label
RA-9. At scene 4 in his statement, which is

00:18:58
location 2, scene 5 in the other documents,
he was shown the body of a male in his mid-30s,

00:19:05
identified to him as Skender, who had part
of his skull missing. He examined an axe that

00:19:10
was nearby which appeared to have a small
amount of blood on it. At the entrance gate

00:19:15
to that compound, he found a skull fragment
with some hair on it; and in the house, he

00:19:22
found bone fragments that appeared consistent
with the man's injuries. This house had suffered

00:19:28
heavy gunfire damage. En route to the next
location, he located and photographed a rifle

00:19:36
grenade in the ground with a fintail protruding.
At scene 5 in his statement, which is location

00:19:45
5, scene 10 in other documentation, he came
across a freshly-dug trench which was about

00:19:53
four feet deep and two feet wide which showed
no evidence of recent use. He then came to

00:20:00
a gully where he located a total of 22 bodies
in two groups, one comprising 15 bodies and

00:20:08
the second comprising seven bodies. There
was a 23rd body located a short distance away

00:20:16
but in the same vicinity. On the northern
side of the gully, he found ammunition boxes

00:20:23
labelled in Cyrillic, indicating 7.6 calibre
ammunition. Now, this witness, in his statement,

00:20:34
indicates that there were no signs of drag
marks or blood leading in or out of the gully.

00:20:39
It was apparent, however, to him that some
if not all of the bodies had been turned over.

00:20:49
Bloodstaining indicated the location where
death occurred. All the bodies were rigid

00:20:55
and dressed in civilian clothing. There were
no weapons near the bodies. The vast majority

00:21:02
of injuries on all the bodies he saw in Racak
that day were due, in his opinion, to gunshots.

00:21:09
He then recorded the individual details of
bodies at scene 5, 1 to 23, which you will

00:21:18
find again referred to as location 5, scene
10. He moves on then to crime location 3,

00:21:29
scene 7. From the gully, he walked into the
village to a house with the number 30 on it

00:21:38
where the body of Hanemshah Mehmeti was identified
to him. Mehmeti was reportedly killed by a

00:21:45
sniper while Mehmeti was going to the aid
of someone already hit by a sniper. He was

00:21:53
then taken to another location and shown the
area where Bajram and Hanemshah Mehmeti were

00:21:58
killed. The body of Bajram was identified
to him. It was lying in a room of the family

00:22:04
home. He did not photograph that body because
he'd used up all his film, however, another

00:22:10
OSCE member by the name of Michael Pedersen
apparently videoed it. He then moves on to

00:22:19
what was referred to in Mr. Kelly's documentation
as location 4, scene 9, which is a family

00:22:28
compound where the bodies of Riza, Halim,
and Zenel Beqiri were lying in a room. Villagers

00:22:35
told this witness that they were shot by the
police from a hill about 60 metres away. He

00:22:41
also did not photograph those bodies. Xhemzjl
Beqiri, a survivor from that incident, told

00:22:50
the witness what happened. He moved on then
to location 3, scene 8. He was brought to

00:23:00
another location where he was shown a compound
that had a ten-foot wall surrounding four

00:23:05
houses. Ismet Bahimi pointed out the body
and severed head of his brother Ajad Bahimi.

00:23:12
Apparently he had been shot first and then,
sometime later, his head was removed. He did

00:23:20
not photograph this scene. There was damage
to the family tractors and it appeared that

00:23:26
the house had been ransacked. In his statement,
he also talks about his dealings on the 17th

00:23:33
of January, 1999, with Judge Marinkovic. He
was at Stimlje when he saw a build-up of Serbian

00:23:41
forces that were there apparently to assist
the investigating Judge, Ms. Marinkovic. Her

00:23:48
purpose was to enter Racak to investigate
the incident. The witness indicates that there

00:23:54
were sporadic firing aimed at and around the
village. On the 18th of January, 1999, the

00:24:02
witness spoke with Judge Marinkovic in relation
to the investigation into Racak. She stated,

00:24:08
inter alia, that the purpose of her visit
was to show the world that the bodies were

00:24:14
not of innocent peasants, as Walker had said,
but that they were terrorists. She and this

00:24:20
is my paraphrasing said that they found evidence
that proves the villagers were terrorists

00:24:25
because they found uniforms, trenches, machine-guns,
and bombs. He then, in his statement, goes

00:24:33
on to indicate attending at the mortuary on
the 19th and 20th of January, 1999, to observe

00:24:42
the post-mortems of some of the deceased persons
from Racak performed by the forensic pathologist

00:24:48
from both Pristina and from Belorussia. He
videoed some of those proceedings. Now, Your

00:24:59
Honours, I propose at this point to show five
photographs to assist the Trial Chamber with

00:25:04
respect to evidence heard from witnesses concerning
their observation of bodies and their conclusions

00:25:11
that the bodies had been mutilated, shot at
close range, or decapitated. You will recall

00:25:17
that there's been extensive cross-examination
about that, and in fairness and to assist

00:25:23
the Trial Chamber to see whether or not there
was any basis for those comments by the witnesses,

00:25:28
I propose to show first of all photograph
00732320. And Mr. Usher, if you could put

00:25:39
that on the ELMO. This is a photograph showing
an unusual eye injury. You will recall evidence

00:25:48
about witnesses talking about mutilation and
eyes. Witness, I'd like you to look at that

00:26:07
photograph. Do you recognise the scene depicted
in that photograph? I do. Yes. Now, is this

00:26:12
one of the photographs you took or is this
just a photograph of a scene that you recall

00:26:19
when you were there on the 16th of January?
It's one of the photographs I took. All right.

00:26:25
And -- all right. Thank you. The next photograph,
please. Yes. Photograph These are all in the

00:26:42
Racak binder, in sequence, Your Honours. Again,
Mr. Hendrie, is this one of the photographs

00:26:52
you took? It is, Your Honour. Below and behind
the right ear, there appears to be a mark.

00:27:05
Can you describe what that mark looks like?
It appears to be an entry gunshot wound with

00:27:12
scorching and stippling around the wound.
In your statement, sir, you indicated that

00:27:18
they appeared to have been shot at close range;
is that correct? Yes, Your Honour. Is this

00:27:25
one of the factors that you considered in
coming to that conclusion? It is, Your Honour.

00:27:37
Thank you. Next photograph, 00732368. Again,
sir, that's a photograph you took? Yes, Your

00:27:54
Honour. And what, if anything, can you tell
us about this photograph in relation to the

00:28:00
eye area? It appears that a bullet has entered
the skull and the passage of the bullet has

00:28:08
caused the eyes to be distorted. Thank you.
Next photograph, 00732387. Again, sir, is

00:28:27
this a photograph that you took? Yes, Your
Honour. We've heard evidence, sir, about mutilation

00:28:38
of bodies and gaping holes in the chest area.
What, if anything, did you note about this

00:28:46
particular body when you photographed it?
I observed that there were two or what appears

00:28:52
to be two gunshot wounds to the chest and
fluids and remains of internal organs on the

00:29:01
chest. And this area that you noted that's
shown in this photograph, where is that wound

00:29:12
in relation to where you would normally expect
to find the heart? It was in the same vicinity.

00:29:17
And finally, Your Honours, a photograph which
has not yet been marked as an exhibit in these

00:29:23
proceedings. Oh, you've got it there? Yes.
Would you put that on the ELMO, please. That

00:29:36
appears to be a headless torso, sir. You,
in your report, indicated you saw two of them.

00:29:43
Did you take this photograph? I can't recall
just now. All right. Do you recall whether

00:29:52
or not you saw any headless bodies while you
were being shown around Racak on the 16th

00:30:00
of January, There were two, Your Honour. Did
you photograph one or two or any? One. Thank

00:30:09
you. Finally, Your Honours, I'd like to show
a 30-second clip of Exhibit 95. You've already

00:30:18
seen certain portions of it. Could the AV
booth help us? Start the video. It's only

00:30:27
about 30 seconds. This is at a part of the
exhibit, Your Honours, 95, of the video that

00:30:38
was taken with Mr. Walker present. Yes. Would
you run the video, please. Videotape played]

00:30:48
Okay. At the top of the hill. The first corpse
is that of a male, probably in his mid-to-late-30s.

00:30:59
He appears to have been executed by being
shot at close range through the head. There

00:31:16
are two indicators of -- One of the bullets
-- There are two indicators of exit wounds.

00:31:22
The man appears to have had his right ear
severed. He has been shot at very close range

00:31:33
in both the face, and I can't see where the
chest exit wound originated. There's a bullet.

00:31:42
I just wanted to assess what kind it is. Okay.
Because it's not fired. It's pretty big. Got

00:31:57
me? Yeah. There are significant numbers of
7.62 cardboard boxes sprinkled around the

00:32:06
area, suggesting that those that undertook
this calmly executed their victims and reloaded

00:32:14
in the same place." Stop the video there,
please. Now, the photograph of the body that

00:32:21
we see -- I'm sorry, the image of the body
that we see in the video, is that the same

00:32:26
person that you photographed? It is, Your
Honour. All right. And again, it showed the

00:32:31
chest wound? It did. Mr. Ryneveld, you -- Thank
you. We haven't marked yet -- we haven't given

00:32:45
a number to that last photograph. No, but
I -- I want to know who that was. Sorry. That

00:32:57
was a -- I can ask the witness, yes. Yes.
Thank you. Witness, did you recognise that

00:33:06
individual who was speaking on camera as having
been present on the 16th of January when you

00:33:13
were there? Your Honour, I didn't see the
man there on the day in question. However,

00:33:18
I did recognise him as being a man named Brown,
a British liaison officer. And were you aware

00:33:28
of his function as head of the medical team
there or were you aware of that? Well, it

00:33:34
would be better if you called Mr. Brown. Yes.
That's fine. Thank you, Your Honour. Those

00:33:38
are all the questions, other than having that
last photograph, which has not been entered,

00:33:43
marked as an exhibit, those are my questions.
Might that be given an exhibit number? Yes.

00:34:00
Thank you. Prosecution Exhibit 215. Mr. Hendrie,
a technical question: The images that we saw

00:34:40
were of apparently internal organs, some of
them, spread out over the bodies or elsewhere

00:34:50
near to the bodies. All of that would have
resulted from shooting at close range or could

00:34:59
have resulted from being shot at such close
range? It could have, Your Honour, yes. Because

00:35:12
I must say that, looking at it, one would
have the impression that the organs were pulled,

00:35:24
were taken out almost manually, which is consistent
with what some of the witnesses said. But

00:35:37
what you're saying is that that is also consistent
with being shot at very close range? I believe

00:35:45
so, Your Honour. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
Well, first of all, I have an objection since

00:36:05
here we heard comments on details which are
considered to be an exclusive domain of forensic

00:36:13
analysis, and this witness here is not a forensic
expert. I think that -- Why don't you ask

00:36:19
him about his qualifications? Well, I can
see that he's a police detective. He worked

00:36:32
in the English police. Mr. Hendrie. Help us
about your qualifications to deal with this

00:36:39
evidence. What is your background in forensic
matters? Your Honour, I served as a detective

00:36:47
in the Royal Hong Kong Police for six years,
dealing with murders and rapes and other serious

00:36:53
crimes, and I've served in the Metropolitan
Police Service in London for some 13 years

00:36:59
and the last few years as a detective. And
I served in Bosnia and in Kosovo where I've

00:37:04
dealt with and seen numerous gunshot wounds
and have worked with forensic pathologists

00:37:12
and scientists on similar cases. Yes. Well,
that is the whole point of my comments. You

00:37:28
have statements of forensic experts, and here
you are taking evidence on the same subject

00:37:39
from a witness who is not an expert. But let
me turn to my questions. First of all, I would

00:37:44
like to clarify something. Before you do,
it's right that we should deal with your comment.

00:37:54
Any question of qualification or appropriateness
of this witness to deal with the matters which

00:38:02
he does are matters which go to the weight
of his evidence, nothing else. You can cross-examine

00:38:12
him about
the matter. Yes. Well, my time is extremely
limited, and since you classified this witness

00:38:24
as a 92 bis -- am I understanding this correctly?
Yes. You've got an hour. Cross-examined by

00:38:35
Mr. Milosevic: Well, in that case, concerning
the previous topic, are you, sir, a medical

00:38:45
expert at all? No. You know quite well he's
not. He's given his background. Well, this

00:38:56
is exactly what I claimed, and you told me
to ask him about his qualifications, and this

00:39:08
is why I put this question to him. But all
right. Let's turn to other issues. But before

00:39:16
we focus on specific issues, let me ask you
the following: In several instances in your

00:39:22
statement, for example on page 1, you say
that you saw people in black uniforms and

00:39:33
then you say in camouflage uniforms. It was
the KLA soldiers in the village. And then

00:39:40
you go on to say: "I don't know how many other
soldiers I saw that day," and then, at the

00:39:46
bottom of the page, you say that you were
told that the KLA had removed the bodies of

00:39:53
the soldiers before the MUP forces and the
VJ forces arrived, which, of course, is illogical.

00:40:02
And at that point, you say that you cannot
remember how you obtained this information,

00:40:07
and you also cannot remember the identity
of the persons who gave you this information.

00:40:11
And then you go on to say that you don't know
the identity of any of the KLA soldiers or

00:40:18
military police and so on. So for example,
on page 5, you say: "I'm not in the position

00:40:26
to confirm the source of the information."
This is the spot where you talk about the

00:40:31
detaining of the civilian population. And
then on page 6, you talk about mass graves

00:40:37
near Orahovac where the remains of some missing
persons -- ... a question. Therefore, I just

00:40:51
quoted seven or eight instances in your statement
where you say that you do not have information

00:40:58
about locations or the source of the information
given to you. So that means that a number

00:41:06
of allegations stated by you here is something
that you don't know the source for. So is

00:41:15
it something that is logical for a professional
policeman to state? So you say on a number

00:41:24
of occasions that you don't know the identity,
you don't know the source of information,

00:41:28
and so on. Is it logical for a policeman to
state something of this kind? Do you think

00:41:37
you can deal with that or not? Your Honour,
I reported what I was told as faithfully as

00:41:43
I could. It is correct that I do not know
or cannot recall the identity of some of the

00:41:50
sources. Well, when you are retelling something
that you were told and you cannot remember

00:42:04
or you don't know the source of the information,
isn't that something that in lay terms we

00:42:09
describe as hearsay, rumours? I believe that's
a matter for the Court, Your Honour. All right.

00:42:25
Let's clarify another issue. You said that
when you came to Racak, you were stopped by

00:42:31
the members of the KLA who were dressed in
special black uniforms, well-armed, and so

00:42:40
on; is that right? This is what it says here.
"They wore black uniforms with KLA insignia.

00:42:49
They were well-armed," and so on. Is that
right? Your Honour, that is correct except

00:42:57
I didn't say that they were special. Well,
I quoted your words. "Black uniforms, and

00:43:16
they were well-armed." Your Honours, I don't
normally interject, but if the witness is

00:43:27
purporting -- I'm sorry -- if the accused
is purporting to quote to the witness a direct

00:43:31
quote, then at least the English translation
of that doesn't use the words "well-armed,"

00:43:35
it says "armed with" and then describes it.
Yes. I think that should be put to the witness

00:43:42
accurately. Yes. Quite right. Let's move on.
Well, in that case, I would like you to look

00:43:54
at the Serbian version, which says "well-armed."
I did not read the English version, and I

00:44:00
cannot look into a crystal ball to see whether
the English and Serbian versions are identical.

00:44:07
I think it's the responsibility of those who
provide this material to me. But my question

00:44:14
is as follows: I would like you to check the
Serbian version and see that it says "well-armed."

00:44:21
I did not invent this. What language did you
make your statement in? English, Your Honour.

00:44:31
Your Honour, just looking at the statements
of 24th of May, there is the word "well-armed"

00:44:35
used under the 16th of January. Let's find
it. Second paragraph. Page 2 of the statement

00:44:50
served 24th of May. Which statement? It's
the interview of 12/10/2000 and 17/10/2000.

00:45:05
Your Honours, I have found the location. First
of all, in the first statement, it refers

00:45:14
to -- It's the second statement. It seems
to be the second statement. Yes. And I acknowledge

00:45:22
that although in the first statement, it simply
says "armed with," that in the second statement

00:45:27
in paragraph -- in the now paragraph numbered
-- is it 2? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble

00:45:36
finding it. It's page 197181 on the top right-hand
corner, second paragraph. Yes, I see it now.

00:45:46
The number 2, it does say -- he's now referring
back to his first statement and says: "They

00:45:53
were well-armed but the weaponry did not appear
to be different." So I see that, depending

00:45:59
on which statement you're looking at, one
statement simply says "armed" and the second

00:46:03
statement says "well-armed." I accept that,
and I apologise. All right. I accept Mr. Ryneveld's

00:46:15
apologies, by I think that, Mr. May, you cannot
draw a conclusion immediately that what the

00:46:23
other side says is correct and what I say
is incorrect. I think that that is one more

00:46:29
manifestation of complete bias that we have
seen here. Move on, Mr. Milosevic. The people

00:46:37
in the black uniforms who were well-armed,
were they the same kind of people that were

00:46:48
seen on the different photographs and images
accompanying Mr. Walker on various occasions

00:46:55
during the Verification Mission's term of
office? Can you answer that or not? Your Honour,

00:47:06
I cannot. Very well. Who informed you about
the occurrences in Racak? But let's be expeditious,

00:47:22
brief. I'll ask short questions, you give
me short answers to make the best use of our

00:47:29
time. The head of the Human Rights Division,
Sandra Mitchell. Sandra Mitchell. All right.

00:47:46
And you were told that there were a large
number of fatalities, human fatalities. Now,

00:47:50
do you remember what the figure that was quoted
was? How many fatalities? At that time, Your

00:48:00
Honour, it was just a large number. Ken Marcusson
from the local KVM unit told you that on the

00:48:12
15th of January he was at a certain position
close to Racak. That is to say that he was

00:48:19
in the same position which is where the tanks,
as you said, of the Yugoslav army and the

00:48:25
snipers were located; is that correct? Yes,
Your Honour. Does that mean that the Yugoslav

00:48:37
authorities had previously informed the representatives
of the KVM of the activities and called them

00:48:42
to perform their functions as observers? I
can't answer that, Your Honour. And did Marcusson

00:48:53
tell you how long the operation lasted and
when the members of the police and army withdrew

00:48:58
from Racak? Mr. Marcusson just referred to
the incident of the previous day lasting the

00:49:10
day. He did not tell me at what time the security
forces withdrew. And where did you arrive

00:49:23
at Stimlje or Racak from on the 16th of January?
Where were you coming from? Pristina, Your

00:49:31
Honour. In passing through Stimlje or Racak,
did you notice members of the army or the

00:49:41
police force, either nearby or at a further
distance? I don't recall seeing any security

00:49:55
forces on my journey, Your Honour. So the
only forces that you did see were the KLA

00:50:07
forces that stopped you at their checkpoint;
isn't that right? Your Honour, I can confirm

00:50:15
that I did see members of the KLA. I cannot
recall whether I did see any security forces

00:50:20
on that day or not. How many KLA members were
at the checkpoint, manned the checkpoint?

00:50:35
About a dozen, Your Honour. Sorry, 12. Twelve
of them. Now, you claim that after a short

00:50:45
argument, you were allowed to enter Racak.
What argument was this about? Your Honour,

00:50:57
I wouldn't term it an argument, it was a discussion
or negotiation for us to enter. It referred

00:51:03
to the ethnicity of the driver and interpreter
that we had with us. So on the 16th of January,

00:51:19
the village of Racak and the surrounding parts
were under the military control of the KLA,

00:51:25
weren't they? Right? I believe so, Your Honour.
And do you have any idea as to the number

00:51:36
of KLA members in Racak and surrounding parts
on that day? Do you have any idea? No, Your

00:51:44
Honour. I'm sorry. No, Your Honour. You say
that on the 16th of January, your colleague,

00:51:55
Michael Pedersen, filmed with a video camera
the locations that you describe and the victims.

00:52:00
When did he arrive in the village? I don't
know, Your Honour. He arrived after I did.

00:52:07
How soon after you? I don't know, Your Honour.
Did he come alone or did he come with anybody

00:52:22
else? When I saw him, Your Honour, he was
alone. In your statement, you say that on

00:52:34
the 16th of January, when you were touring
some places in Racak and the surrounding parts

00:52:40
that you mention in your statement, that KLA
-- a KLA soldier led you in a camouflage uniform

00:52:50
and elderly man, that these were the people
who escorted you on your tour; is that right?

00:52:58
A KLA soldier in camouflage uniform did show
us in the initial stages, and we were shown

00:53:05
different locations by different members of
the civilian population. Is it true that when

00:53:16
you investigated the scene of the event, as
you denote to be place, spot number 1, Azem

00:53:25
Banushi, did you notice a pistol casing of
a 7.62 calibre type? There was an empty case

00:53:43
of 7.62 calibre, Your Honour. A pistol one;
right? I believe they're used in semi-automatic

00:53:55
or automatic weapons as opposed to a pistol.
Look at page 3, paragraph 2 of your statement,

00:54:08
please. It may not follow because the accused
is using the Serbian. What is the passage,

00:54:15
Mr. Milosevic, that you want this witness
to deal with? English page 3, end of second

00:54:27
paragraph, first statement. All right. I don't
think that observation is one I'm challenging.

00:54:52
But in view of your experience and as you
explained to us, you dealt with killings during

00:55:01
your long career, can you make an assumption
as to who could have shot the bullet which

00:55:10
that casing -- which left that casing? No,
Your Honour. But you claim that the photographs

00:55:23
of this scene indicate the absence of any
signs of armed battle. Is that what you're

00:55:29
saying? Do you claim that the photographs
that you showed indicate the absence of any

00:55:34
signs of armed battle? My observation was
that there was no indication of armed fighting

00:55:45
at
that location. So you exclude the possibility
of an armed battle, the participation of these

00:55:58
individuals in an armed battle; right? Or
do you just say on that scene, in that location?

00:56:13
If you don't follow the question, say so,
Mr. Hendrie. Sorry. Would Mr. Milosevic repeat

00:56:32
the question, please. Of course. You exclude,
therefore, the possibility of any armed battle

00:56:46
in which these individuals could have participated,
or do you just exclude the possibility of

00:56:52
armed battle in that particular locality?
Your Honour, nothing I saw or observed on

00:57:03
that day indicated that the people -- the
dead bodies that I had seen had been engaged

00:57:08
in combat. And what should you have seen in
order to confirm that they had been engaged

00:57:24
in armed combat? What should they have looked
like, the dead people, having been killed

00:57:34
in combat? What should they have looked like?
Your Honour, it's not just what the combatants,

00:57:41
if that's what they were, would look like,
it's actually other indications in the vicinity.

00:57:54
Empty cases, weapons, discarded munitions,
damage from the use of those munitions. Yes.

00:58:06
So you go back to the location. Like you said
a moment ago, you said location. Now, can

00:58:18
that mean that those participants in armed
combat were brought to that location where

00:58:24
there was no armed battle or combat? Your
Honour, nothing that I observed on that day

00:58:36
indicated that the bodies of the men and child
and woman had
died at another location other than those

00:58:54
ones where I was actually told and shown that
the body had been moved and the location where

00:59:01
the body had been taken from. All right. Now,
if the bodies had been moved, the bodies which

00:59:17
are moved -- the bodies could have been brought
in from somewhere. Isn't that so? I don't

00:59:25
believe so, Your Honour. How do you know what
distance these bodies were moved from, whether

00:59:36
they were moved five metres or 50 metres or
perhaps 200 metres? How could you tell? I

00:59:45
spoke to various people and was shown and
observed different locations which indicated

00:59:52
where people had died and then where they
had been moved to. Did they explain to you

01:00:06
how these people had in fact died? On some
occasions, yes. And in that ditch or gully

01:00:17
where you saw the bodies, did they show you
that? I was shown a number of bodies in the

01:00:29
gully, yes. Did they tell you that at the
top of the gully was the police, who allegedly

01:00:39
fired at those people? No, Your Honour. They
didn't tell you that story, did they? No,

01:00:49
Your Honour. How long did you stay in that
location? Which location? The place where

01:01:06
you explained that, in your opinion, there
were no traces of armed battle, as you explained

01:01:11
it, et cetera. Your Honour, are we referring
to the first location, the first body? Which

01:01:25
location? Well, let's say the first. How long
were you in the first location? I couldn't

01:01:42
say, Your Honour. How long were you at the
scene in the village? Until the late afternoon,

01:01:54
Your Honour. I don't think we have what time
you got there. About midday, sir. In describing

01:02:09
location 2 on page 3, you say that you examined
the bodies of three males. Could you describe

01:02:18
to us how you conducted this examination?
Initially, I observed the bodies from a distance,

01:02:30
approached, and then visually observed each
body in turn and then attempted to turn the

01:02:39
body over to examine, to see whether there
were any injuries on their backs. And you

01:02:42
say that in addition to the -- next to the
bodies of these three men, you saw no empty

01:03:00
casings. Does that mean that
no firearms were used? No, Your Honour. It
just means that there were no empty casings

01:03:10
near those two bodies -- I'm sorry, three
bodies. All right. Now, how much time went

01:03:18
by, in your opinion, from the moment of death
to the moment you actually saw the bodies?

01:03:26
I can't say that, Your Honour. Well, the soldier
that took you on this tour, he knew where

01:03:38
he was taking you, didn't he? I believe so,
Your Honour. Does that mean that the KLA,

01:03:47
before you examined all these places with
the team, that you -- that they had access

01:03:53
to the bodies? Yes, Your Honour. And are you
aware of a report of the aluminum test with

01:04:06
the paraffin glove from the hands of people
who were killed in Racak? I am aware that

01:04:15
the paraffin test was applied to the deceased.
Do you know of the results, what the results

01:04:25
were? No, Your Honour. And were you interested
in learning the results at all? I would have

01:04:43
been, yes, Your Honour. But you never asked
to hear them? Your Honour, the Serb authorities

01:05:04
were cooperative -- sorry, less than cooperative
with the OSCE in this matter. I do make an

01:05:14
observation that I believe the paraffin test
has been discredited a number of years ago

01:05:20
in the United States and elsewhere. Yes. And
that was the evidence in this case from an

01:05:28
expert. You claim that next to the bodies
on page 4, you say that, paragraph 1 that

01:05:39
you saw a pool of blood, and it was the body
belonging to Hajriz Jakujsi; right? There

01:05:50
was a pool of blood next to the deceased Mr.
-- Yes. And is it true that the blood hadn't

01:06:07
dried? Would you like to look at your statement?
Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Kay, I don't know whether

01:06:21
you can find it for us. Judge Kwon has it.
It's page 4, second paragraph. Yes. The pool

01:06:36
of blood by the body of Hajriz Jakujsi. It
was still moist, sir. Does that mean that

01:06:50
it was well suited to a chemical analysis?
You could subject dried and fluid blood to

01:07:04
analysis. And do you claim that the blood
belonged to the victims that you're talking

01:07:16
about? No, sir. Did you take any blood samples
to analyse them or to perform comparative

01:07:26
analyses with the victims? No, Your Honour.
The OSCE had no such facilities. So on the

01:07:34
basis of what do you say that the blood on
the ground belonged to the victims? In this

01:07:44
particular case, I cannot say categorically
that the blood on the ground adjacent to the

01:07:48
deceased was his blood. And you claim that
the body of Hajriz Jakujsi was moved in respect

01:07:59
to its initial position. That's right; isn't
it? It appeared that the body had been rolled

01:08:15
over, sir, yes. And do you know the original
position of his body or, rather, do you know

01:08:26
what position the body of this man was in
when death occurred? The -- the body appeared

01:08:46
to have been rolled over from a -- lying front
down and rolled over on his back. The blood

01:08:57
did correspond to the injuries of the deceased.
So your answer to my question as to whether

01:09:12
you know the original position of the body
was a positive response; right? It was yes.

01:09:18
I cannot say that I know. I can say that I
believe from my observations. All right. If

01:09:33
the -- if you don't know the original position
of the body, does that allow -- does that

01:09:38
allow, along with the fact that the body was
moved, that death did not occur in the place

01:09:47
where you saw the body for the first time?
I don't believe so, Your Honour. You don't

01:09:59
believe so. No, sir. Sorry. No, sir. But you
don't exclude the possibility or do you fully

01:10:11
exclude it? Your Honour, there were no indications
that the body had been moved from another

01:10:19
location and placed where I had seen it. There
were no drag marks. There were no blood trails.

01:10:26
The pool of blood I saw corresponded to the
injury if the body had been face down and

01:10:32
then rolled over. If the body were brought
in part of a tent, for example, tent canvas,

01:10:48
would there be drag marks or blood traces
when it was brought in? I believe there would

01:10:55
be indications that the body had actually
been brought in, yes. Now, as you are a policeman

01:11:09
with 20 years of experience at your job, can
you say that you're a specialist for certain

01:11:16
aspects of your profession? I'm not sure I'd
describe myself as a specialist, Your Honour,

01:11:27
but certainly knowledgeable in certain areas.
Did you move the bodies you examined? Some

01:11:39
of them, yes, sir. And do you know that it
is a basic rule of the profession to which

01:11:47
you belong that on the scene, nothing should
be touched or moved until an official investigation

01:11:55
is conducted? Is it a basic rule? In normal
circumstances, yes, sir. And why were these

01:12:06
abnormal? Your Honour, I was not there as
a police officer. I was there as a member

01:12:13
of the OSCE to observe what had occurred and
to draw some conclusions. There had been some

01:12:20
conflict the previous day. The KLA were in
possession of the village and the security

01:12:25
forces were likely to want to re-enter the
village, which is actually what did occur

01:12:34
a couple of days later. When you talk about
bodies from scene 2 and the Syla brothers

01:12:47
it is the fourth paragraph on page 3 you make
no mention of traces of blood on the ground;

01:12:55
isn't that right? Yes, Your Honour. Was there
any blood around their bodies or not? Not

01:13:11
that I observed, Your Honour. And the absence
of blood next to bodies with numerous gunshot

01:13:22
wounds, does that mean or can that mean that
these people did not lose their lives in the

01:13:29
location their bodies were found? No, Your
Honour. So if you find a body with several

01:13:46
gunshot wounds without any traces of blood,
you consider that they could have been killed

01:13:54
on that spot, do you? That's quite possible,
sir, yes. Where would the blood be, then?

01:14:04
Where's the blood? I don't understand, sir.
Well, how is it possible that there are no

01:14:13
traces of blood if there are so many wounds
to the body caused by firearms, by gunshot

01:14:20
wounds? So those wounds don't bleed, that
would mean that. Your Honour, when a person

01:14:34
is injured, the wound does bleed, but it doesn't
mean that blood will be liberally spread around

01:14:41
the scene. Well, you didn't find blood anywhere.
Not liberally spread; you didn't find it anywhere.

01:14:54
Sir, I did not observe any blood. It doesn't
mean that there wasn't any there. Yes. We're

01:15:05
going to adjourn now. We're going to adjourn
now. Mr. Hendrie, just before we do, help

01:15:11
us with this in case some point is going to
be made about it hereafter. To what extent

01:15:17
did you move any of these bodies when you
were examining them? I just overturned -- turned

01:15:24
the bodies over, sir. In your estimation,
how soon were you on the scene after death?

01:16:06
I can't say, sir. All right. Thank you. Mr.
Hendrie, we're going to adjourn for 20 minutes.

01:16:26
During the adjournment, please remember not
to speak to anybody about your evidence until

01:16:30
it's over, and that does include members of
the Prosecution team. Yes. We will adjourn

01:17:23
now for 20 minutes. Recess taken at 10.30
a.m. On resuming at 10.53 a.m. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

01:17:54
Well, based on the information here, I take
it that you're a graduate of -- you have a

01:18:03
degree in chemistry; right? Yes, Your Honour.
Can you tell me, please, how long does it

01:18:12
take, how many hours, for the blood to dry
up? Your Honour, I can't answer that question.

01:18:23
It depends on a lot of circumstances. Approximately.
I can't answer that question, sir. Well, you

01:18:40
know what the circumstances were. So how long?
Two hours, three, five, ten hours, more than

01:18:50
ten hours? Sir, I can't answer that question.
Suppose the victims were killed on the 15th

01:19:04
of January and they stayed there. Can you
answer then? I would have expected most of

01:19:15
the blood to have dried, sir, yes. At any
rate, the blood should have dried up in the

01:19:32
more than 20 hours that lapsed; right? I can't
answer that, sir. All right. When you speak

01:19:40
of the crime scene number 3, you describe
the body of Ahmet Mustafa, and also you describe

01:19:51
in great detail the wounds that he had. This
is page 4, paragraph 5. You claim that his

01:19:59
body was moved or, rather, turned over and
moved from the spot in which it was hit. Can

01:20:06
you determine in which spot he was shot? I
believe that he would -- he'd been killed

01:20:27
at that location but had been moved. Did you
move his body as well? I turned his body over,

01:20:46
sir, yes. You claim that this body had no
shoes on; right? Yes, sir. But there was a

01:21:10
full amount of clothing appropriate to the
weather conditions; is that right? He was

01:21:18
fully clothed, sir, yes. Could one conclude
that the footwear was removed from this body

01:21:31
before you saw this body? No, sir. Well, do
you believe that when somebody leaves the

01:21:48
house, that person would put on a jacket,
a hat, and so on and then leave the house

01:21:55
barefoot? Is that what you normally suppose
if you think that the footwear had not been

01:22:00
removed from this body? Your Honour, people
do all sorts of things depending on the circumstances.

01:22:11
I cannot tell what was going through this
man's mind in the moments before he died.

01:22:18
Very well. As you describe crime scene number
4 and a body identified as Skender, on page

01:22:32
5, paragraph 1, you say that the body was
found outdoors and then taken into the house.

01:22:38
Is that right? That's what I was told, Your
Honour, yes. Do you know who brought the body

01:22:45
into the house? I wasn't told, sir. Were you
able to determine the location in which this

01:22:56
person was killed? There was a pool of blood
and a piece of skull nearby, and that would

01:23:06
appear to be the most likely place for the
death. So somebody brought him into the house

01:23:16
because, with lacking a fragment of skull,
that person could not have entered the house

01:23:27
on his own; is that right? I was told that
he had been moved into the house, sir. Did

01:23:37
you, and when I say "you" I don't mean you
personally, I just mean the verifiers, did

01:23:47
you keep the axe that was supposedly found
and shown to you, the one that you describe

01:23:55
on page 4, paragraph 5? No, sir. And who showed
it to you, this axe? There was a gentleman

01:24:14
at the scene. I can't recall his name, sir.
At that time, did you also have some KLA people

01:24:34
in -- near you or escorting you? There was
a KLA soldier, sir. Did somebody take or isolate

01:24:52
blood samples from the axe that had been shown
to you? I did not. Were there any traces of

01:25:05
hair on the axe? Not that I was able to observe,
sir. So
is it your claim that this person was killed

01:25:21
with an axe? No, sir. In your statement, you
claim that you saw a trench which was about

01:25:36
centimetres deep and 60 centimetres wide,
and about -- over 70 metres long; is that

01:25:42
right? Sir, I'm not very familiar with the
metric system. I was using feet. The trench

01:25:57
I believe you're referring to was four feet
deep and about two feet wide. To answer your

01:26:14
question, I did see a trench that would appear
to match your description. So this can be

01:26:21
found on page 5, paragraph 3. It was about
120 centimetres deep, 60 centimetres wide,

01:26:33
and over 70 metres long; is that right? The
witness has answered that. What could have

01:26:46
been the purpose of that trench? It's not
for the witness to say. Do you have any idea,

01:26:51
Mr. Hendrie? No, Your Honour. But you also
claim that there were no signs that the trench

01:27:04
had been recently used; is that right? Yes,
Your Honour. Did you examine the entire length

01:27:16
of this trench, the entire 70 metres? Yes
or no. No. Well, how do you know, then, that

01:27:24
there were no traces of recent use? Your Honour,
I saw no traces of recent use. On page 4,

01:27:34
paragraph -- page 5, paragraph 4 in your statement,
you describe the crime scene number 5. There

01:27:45
was a group of 15 bodies and seven scattered,
and you say that this location was taped on

01:27:56
a videotape on the 23rd of January between
1329 hours and 1400 hours. Does this mean

01:28:05
that this videotape that you mention shows
only the location or the bodies as well? Just

01:28:14
the location, Your Honour. And what is the
significance of this footage that was made

01:28:27
eight days after the event? I wanted to go
back to the location to see the actual different

01:28:38
positions with more time. On the day in question,
I had very limited time. Yes. But my question

01:28:55
was: What is the significance of this footage
of the location which was made eight days

01:29:01
after the event? On the 23rd, when I returned,
I made a record, a fuller record, of the locations

01:29:14
where I had not an opportunity previously.
All right. You say that on the north part

01:29:30
of the gully you found casings. How many -- shell
casings. How many did you find? I didn't count

01:29:41
them, Your Honour. Well, approximately. Two,
four, five, ten, 50? There were dozens, Your

01:30:00
Honour. So dozens. So about 50, would you
say? And how far from the body were these

01:30:09
casings? They were a few metres away, Your
Honour. And what shells were they? Do you

01:30:24
know? I believe they were 7.62 millimetre
calibre. And were the wounds on the bodies

01:30:42
caused or inflicted by the shells? The majority
of the injuries on the bodies that I saw were

01:30:53
inflicted by gunshots. I could not say at
that time whether the gunshot injuries were

01:31:06
caused by weapons fired and then discarding
the empty cases I saw. Did you find rifle

01:31:30
or pistol casings as well? The empty cases
are typical ammunition from automatic or semi-automatic

01:31:43
weapons, not pistols. Could you be more precise
as to the time when you saw these bodies for

01:31:58
the first time? I didn't make a record of
the time. It was shortly before Ambassador

01:32:10
Walker arrived on the scene. So if you're
aware of that time, then it's possible to

01:32:16
get the approximate time. So did he arrive
after you? Yes, Your Honour. And you said

01:32:30
that you arrived at 12.00. About midday, yes.
So that means that he came in the afternoon.

01:32:45
You claim that all of the bodies were turned
over. Is that true? One can find this on page

01:32:54
paragraph 6. I believe I said that the majority
of the bodies appeared to be turned over.

01:33:31
Could you describe more specifically what
indicated that all of these bodies had been

01:33:41
turned over and moved? Sir, I said turned
over. On the ground next to some of the bodies,

01:33:58
there were corresponding patches of blood
to the injuries. Some of the bodies had debris,

01:34:11
that is dirt and grasses, on their faces which
would appear to correspond to the area immediately

01:34:22
adjacent to them. Were you able to determine
who had turned over these bodies? Categorically,

01:34:36
no. Is it true that all of these bodies had
several gunshot wounds, through-and-through

01:34:49
gunshot wounds? I can't say that all of the
bodies had several gunshot wounds. On what

01:35:16
kind of soil or layer were these bodies lying?
I don't understand. On what kind of surface

01:35:33
were these bodies lying? What kind of soil
are we talking about? I would merely describe

01:35:47
it as dirt, sir. I'm not an expert on soil
types, I'm afraid. But when you describe the

01:36:02
blood traces, you describe them as pots, not
as pools of blood; is that right? I don't

01:36:17
believe I've described pools of blood. Well,
that's what I'm saying. You mention patches

01:36:29
of blood, not pools of blood. Sir, I believe
this is just a matter of semantics. What would

01:36:45
be a pool to one person may be a patch to
another. Well, a patch or a spot indicates

01:36:59
just a trace, whereas a pool indicates a larger
amount. So I believe that this is not a semantic

01:37:06
issue, it's a factual one; isn't that right?
The witness has made his comment. Let's go

01:37:14
on. All right. Wasn't it strange to you that
despite all these wounds on these bodies that

01:37:25
were grouped together there were only patches
of blood and not larger amounts of blood that

01:37:30
you could call pools of blood? Blank page
inserted to ensure pagination corresponds

01:37:42
between the French and English transcripts.
Pages 6509 to 6513. No, sir. Are you able

01:37:45
to indicate on your photographs and videotapes
the traces of blood that you describe? I'm

01:37:52
just asking whether you're able to do so,
I'm not requiring you to do so right now.

01:37:59
I would have to look at the photographs, sir,
again. Well, do you think that you would be

01:38:07
able to do that or not, to indicate these
traces of blood in the photographs that you

01:38:21
made? Possibly. Yes. Have we got the photographs?
Yes, but in that case, I would ask that this

01:38:31
time not be counted in the time allotted to
me for cross-examination. Yes. We'll get the

01:38:37
photographs out. I'm not sure whether the
accused is referring to the photographs shown

01:38:44
to this witness during that portion in chief
or whether he's referring to all of the photographs

01:38:50
in the Racak binder. Any photographs will
do. Just produce the photographs taken of

01:38:58
the bodies. The photographs from the crime
scenes. Yes. That would be in Racak binder

01:39:04
1 of 5, and they're here. They're behind tab
5. Could we perhaps have the binder, Racak

01:39:14
binder 1, shown to the witness. So these are
the photographs of the ravine in which there

01:39:39
were these 15 bodies that you described. Your
Honour, it starts behind tab 5 at number and

01:39:51
the photographs go through -- well, for some
considerable -- two -- Mr. Hendrie, can you

01:40:03
find the photographs counsel is talking about?
Yes, Your Honour. You have. Does Your Honour

01:40:09
want a copy too? No. Thank you. Now, you're
being asked about indications of blood. Perhaps

01:40:20
you'd like to look at the photographs. And
if you can find one that illustrates what

01:40:25
it is you saw, put it on the overhead projector,
if you would. Yes, Your Honour. So we are

01:40:40
talking about the group that the witness described.
If I may be of assistance. It's up to the

01:41:58
witness, but I do notice that number 54 and
78 seem to describe ... I am referring to

01:42:18
the bloodstains on the soil in the location
where you found those 15 bodies. Let the witness

01:42:25
find his way through that bundle and he can
produce these photographs to us. I wish to

01:42:39
remind the witness my question was as follows:
Are you able -- Wait a moment. Wait a moment.

01:42:46
Let the witness go through the bundle and
select the photographs. You can then ask him

01:42:51
questions about it later. Now, Mr. Hendrie,
if you would show us, one by one on the overhead

01:43:03
projector, the various photographs which you
refer to, and if you want to make any comment

01:43:09
about them, do. Sir, this is photograph ending
352. As you can see, the deceased here has

01:43:28
blood or what appears blood on his face, and
to the right of his head there is debris and

01:43:38
what appears to be blood, which would correspond
to the head if he had been rolled over from

01:43:45
a face-down position onto his back. Yes. Another
photograph, 732378. The deceased here at the

01:44:06
bottom left-hand corner of the picture, there's
a pool, if you wish, of blood, and the body

01:44:14
appears to have been -- the rigor mortis set
in and would correspond to -- Where is the

01:44:26
pool? Could you indicate it with the pointer,
please, where the pool of blood that you see

01:44:34
is. Yes, go on. Ah. Is that a pool of blood
then? Yes. Let the witness go on. This area

01:44:53
of blood would appear to correspond to the
head injury if he had been moved from the

01:45:01
face-down position to resting on his back
as we see him now. Yes, go on to the next.

01:45:10
The next photograph sir, is 732354. And we
see the blood there on the right-hand side

01:45:29
of the deceased, with what appears an injury
to, as we look at it, the left-hand side of

01:45:43
the face. The body, if it was in a face-down
position and rolled over from right to left,

01:45:55
the blood would correspond to the area of
the injury. Yes. I can show Your Honour a

01:46:13
photograph of a body where it would appear
the body has not been turned over and the

01:46:18
blood underneath the head would appear to
correspond to the injury. Yes. It's photograph

01:46:28
732324. The deceased was part of the main
group of 15 bodies. The blood underneath the

01:46:41
head and I'd indicate would appear to correspond
to an injury on the deceased's head that we

01:46:52
actually cannot see here. Yes. Are there any
other photographs you wish to say anything

01:47:02
about? I've not been able to find anything
in the short time available, sir. All right.

01:47:10
Do you then, therefore let's just clear this
point up do you therefore claim that these

01:47:18
patches of blood, traces of blood, indicate
that the lethal injuries were inflicted on

01:47:27
the place in which the bodies were found?
Can you say that with certainty? Your Honour,

01:47:37
nobody can be 100 per cent certain. However,
all of the indications are that the deceased

01:47:43
died where we found them, albeit that some
had been turned over and appeared to have

01:47:49
been searched. Documents and personal effects
were found next to some of the bodies. So

01:48:01
next to the bodies. They lost their lives
there, and next to the bodies were their personal

01:48:12
-- documents and personal effects. Is that
what you're saying? Some of the deceased,

01:48:16
sir, yes. And did you perhaps establish who
had searched them and turned them over or

01:48:27
moved them, brought them in or whatever? I
did not, sir. How many casings did you find,

01:48:38
whether belonging to shells or pistols, next
to scene number 5? I believe I said earlier

01:48:48
that there were several dozen empty cases
a few metres away from the deceased. In analysing

01:49:01
your descriptions and the injuries from 01
to 22 this is on pages 6 to 9 it would emerge

01:49:10
that these people were hit with a total of
43 bullets, and the wounds inflicted were

01:49:17
for the most part in the region of the head,
the trunk, the neck, et cetera. Now, in view

01:49:22
of all this, the quantity of blood on the
scene, on the ground that they were lying

01:49:30
on, does this correspond to the number of
injuries and anatomic distribution of the

01:49:37
wounds on these bodies? Your Honour, I've
never actually counted the number of injuries.

01:49:46
I was only able to describe the injuries that
I saw, and I'm not saying that there were

01:49:51
not others. So you're saying that the injuries
were caused by firearms mostly; isn't that

01:50:04
right? It would appear so, sir, yes. And do
you have any photographs or video footage

01:50:13
showing a single case from a rifle that you
mentioned a moment ago? I don't recall actually

01:50:33
photographing any empty cases. As you might
appreciate, sir, I had limited film, and in

01:50:39
actual fact, I did run out. All right. You're
a professional. You've been a professional

01:50:51
soldier for 20-odd years. Is it possible that
in your statement you make mention of cases

01:50:54
and don't consider it significant to photograph
the cases in the places you found them? You

01:51:03
say you saw them. Is that logical? He's a
professional policeman. It was translated

01:51:09
as soldier." He's given his answer. He's told
you why he didn't photograph them. Now, Mr.

01:51:20
Milosevic, you have additional time. Is there
anything else you want to ask this witness?

01:51:27
Well, yes, I do have several more questions.
Then let's get on with them. On page 7, paragraph

01:51:38
6, you speak of body number 13 and the presence
of grasses and dirt stuck to his body. Does

01:51:46
that correspond to the surface that the body
was found on? I'm referring to leaves and

01:51:52
grasses. Where do these leaves and grasses
come from in view of the ground, the surface

01:51:58
on which the body was found? And I'm referring
to body number 13. The location was not consisting

01:52:22
purely of bare dirt. There were grasses and
other vegetable matter, leaves and such like,

01:52:31
lying on the ground. Yes. But you can't see
that on the photograph at all. On that particular

01:52:42
example, the one I'm referring to. There are
no leaves or grass anywhere there. Can you

01:53:04
deal with that or not, Mr. Hendrie? If you
can't deal with it, just say so. Sir, I recorded

01:53:15
what I saw, and I photographed the bodies
in situ. The dirt and debris on the bodies

01:53:25
did correspond to the material around the
bodies. I'm asking you about the leaves and

01:53:40
grass. I believe I answered that, sir. All
right. Thank you, then. Now, you claim that

01:53:51
you were informed that an 18-year-old, Hanemshah
Mehmeti, was hit from a sniper somewhere in

01:53:59
the village as well as another person who
was with her; is that correct? Yes, sir. And

01:54:08
who informed you of that? I don't recall,
sir, and the name of the person was not recorded.

01:54:18
As you might appreciate, not every person
that we spoke to did actually want to give

01:54:22
their personal details, in view of the circumstances.
And did you talk to her friends and family

01:54:35
who transferred her to the house? I spoke
to whoever was there, sir. But you don't know

01:54:53
who with? As I said, sir, not all of the people
that we spoke to actually wanted to give their

01:55:01
details to us. And the people you did talk
to, were they civilians or members of the

01:55:10
KLA? They were all civilians, sir. When did
you leave Racak on the 16th of January? About

01:55:21
teatime, sir. About 4.00 or 5.00. You claim
that on the 17th, you had intended to return

01:55:31
to Racak. Why was that? As you can appreciate,
sir, an afternoon to look at the events of

01:55:42
the 15th is insufficient, and a return to
the scene is always beneficial. On page 10,

01:55:51
paragraph 4, you say that negotiations were
held with respect to the entry of Danica Marinkovic,

01:56:01
the investigating Judge into the village.
Now, what negotiations and who were they conducted

01:56:05
with? A member of the OSCE, a senior member
of the OSCE discussed the matter with the

01:56:16
Judge. What outcome? What was the outcome?
I think we've had evidence about this from

01:56:37
the witness. I don't think this witness can
help us much more. Mr. Milosevic, you've got

01:56:44
ten minutes more, which means you will have
had practically an hour and a half with this

01:56:49
witness, which is more than enough in the
circumstances. Well, I don't need ten minutes.

01:57:00
Tell us, please, who shot at whom in Racak
and the surrounding parts on the 17th of January.

01:57:12
From what I saw and the radio communication
that I listened in to, it would appear that

01:57:19
the security forces
laid down fire in the direction of the village.
Whether there was any return fire, I cannot

01:57:32
say. And do you happen to know what was going
on when the bodies were taken from the mosque,

01:57:46
taken over from the mosque in order to be
transported to the forensic institute in Pristina?

01:57:55
I don't understand the question. Do you know
what fighting was going on when the judicial

01:58:10
organs were taking the bodies from the mosque
in order to transport them to the forensic

01:58:18
institute or institute for forensic medicine
in Pristina? No, Your Honour. And who prevented

01:58:29
the investigating Judge not conducting her
examination in Racak for a full three days?

01:58:37
I can't answer that question, sir. Later on,
you attended the work of the forensic team,

01:58:53
as far as I was able to gather. Yes or no.
Yes, sir. At whose invitation were you present

01:59:01
during this forensic procedure? It was at
our request, and the director of the institute

01:59:10
acceded to that request. And were you there
when the paraffin glove was taken off the

01:59:21
bodies in Racak? I was present, sir, yes.
And do you happen to know the results of those

01:59:30
tests? He's already said that. He didn't.
Not with respect to his presence when this

01:59:41
was taken. I don't see why he shouldn't be
allowed to answer that question. He's already

01:59:46
said he didn't know the results of the paraffin
tests. And anyway, they've been discredited.

01:59:51
All right. So you consider that this has already
been discredited, do you? Very well. So the

02:00:04
witness -- I was repeating the evidence, which
Mr. Milosevic, which this witness had given,

02:00:10
which was he didn't know the tests, the results
of the tests, and anyway, these sort of tests

02:00:16
have not been supported but have been discredited.
In the United States, but not in Yugoslavia.

02:00:25
Yes, that's correct. Well, does the
investigating procedure in Yugoslavia carried
out to USA rules or the rules and of the Yugoslav

02:00:40
investigating -- Now, have you any more questions,
because you've got less than five minutes

02:00:47
left. Thank you very much. Thank you, Your
Honours. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic: Mr.

02:01:05
Hendrie, I'm first of all interested in one
point. When you arrived on that particular

02:01:11
day in Racak, were you told, when you were
taken to the scene where you saw everything

02:01:21
that you saw, were you told at all whether
there were any casualties among the KLA on

02:01:27
that day? Were there any dead, any fatalities
on their part? What do you know about that?

02:01:34
I wasn't informed of any KLA casualties at
that time. However, I was informed subsequently

02:01:42
that the KLA suffered nine casualties. While
you were performing this job which you went

02:01:53
on doing until or 5.00 in the afternoon, you
didn't know that; right? That's correct, sir,

02:02:01
yes. And did anybody indicate the spot, just
like you were taken to all these other locations,

02:02:08
did anybody show you the location of the KLA
base on that particular day, where that was?

02:02:14
No, Your Honour. So you weren't able to see
whether there were any traces there of fighting,

02:02:21
of blood, or anything of that kind. You weren't
able to see that, were you? That's correct,

02:02:30
sir. At what point during that day when you
finished your work at 4.00 or 5.00 in the

02:02:38
afternoon, or, rather, did you know and at
what point did you know exactly what the number

02:02:43
of casualties was on that day? I -- at the
end of the day, I was able to tot up the number

02:03:00
of bodies that I had seen, but I was led to
believe that there were additional casualties

02:03:05
that I had not seen. Mr. Walker was just with
you up on the hill, but he didn't go on with

02:03:18
you at the end of the day when you ascertained
the number of casualties. That's right, isn't

02:03:24
it? I would not describe Mr. Walker as being
with me. He did arrive at the scene with a

02:03:29
separate party, and I did not take part or
join his group. Thank you. In your statement,

02:03:46
the one you gave, you did not -- and this
is on page 5 of the Serbian version, the B/C/S

02:03:58
version, you make no mention of this, and
it is on page 5, paragraph 2 from the top

02:04:08
in the English version. In that portion, you
just say that where the 15 -- there were 15

02:04:18
bodies grouped together, you found a grenade
casing, a shell casing that you mentioned

02:04:25
a moment ago, but you didn't say that you
found any casings, in fact, there from automatic

02:04:37
weapons. In that statement, that is to say
on page 5, paragraph 2 of your statement,

02:04:43
you make no mention of having found any casings
from a firearm at all. Your Honour, I'm not

02:04:51
sure which part in the English statement that
the counsel is referring to. Page 5, paragraph

02:05:05
2 from the top in the English version. You
just refer to a rifle grenade, and you make

02:05:18
no mention in the statement of any cases,
casings. That's correct, sir. Thank you. Your

02:05:29
Honours, I'm now interested in the following,
that is to say it refers to page 7 of the

02:05:40
B/C/S text and page 7, paragraph 4 of the
English version, and onwards. Paragraph 4

02:05:48
onwards. On the spot in the gully, you took
note of the position of each body, did you

02:05:56
not? Generally, yes, sir. There was one exception.
Thank you. You also took note of the fact

02:06:10
that each body, whether it was lying alone
or in a group of bodies or one over another,

02:06:18
for example, body 9, 10, 12 and 13, you even
observed that, made note of that; right? Yes,

02:06:28
sir. And you took note of the wounds you encountered.
That's right; isn't it? Yes, sir. Now, I'm

02:06:38
interested in bodies 6 and 7, and that is
on page 6 of the B/C/S version and it is page

02:06:49
7, paragraph 2. In the seventh body, you say
that the right leg of the sixth body, which

02:06:58
was lying next to the man, was near the chest
and it appeared that there was some blood

02:07:08
from the body of the seventh corpse. The right
leg of the sixth body lying next to this man

02:07:15
was positioned near the man's chest and appeared
to have some blood on his leg from the seventh

02:07:19
body. That is what you say in the statement.
Yes, sir. With the other bodies lying around

02:07:30
in a group or one over another, you did not
note that there were traces on another body

02:07:36
from another corpse. That's right, isn't it?
Yes, sir. Now, tell me, as an experienced

02:07:46
detective, is it possible not to find the
traces of one body on another if these people

02:07:53
were hit from several bullets, especially
in the region of the head, and if they were

02:07:57
hit in that spot and if death occurred on
the spot, that there would be no body from

02:08:05
one -- no blood from one body onto another?
How can you explain that? How do you explain

02:08:10
the fact that in this group of bodies you
found no blood after these shots from one

02:08:16
body onto another? Because the blood would
have had to have been found on other bodies

02:08:22
as well, from one body on another. And in
one section here, referring to the tenth body,

02:08:30
which was a male, positioned directly below
the ninth body, et cetera -- Let the witness

02:08:40
answer what you've put so far. Your Honour,
I would not pretend that my notes and observations

02:08:49
were complete and full observation of the
scene. It was not practical or possible at

02:08:57
that time in those circumstances to treat
the examination of the scene as we would like

02:09:03
to see at home. The examination was, I admit,
hurried, and I recorded as much as I could

02:09:15
in the circumstances. Well, there are photographs
of all these bodies together. I'm asking you,

02:09:27
as an experienced detective working with crimes
of this nature, homicide, that's how I'm asking

02:09:39
you. What happens to the blood when somebody's
shot in the head? Does the blood spurt and

02:09:46
splash in different directions? And if so,
how is it possible that traces of that blood

02:09:52
was not found dispersed on all the bodies?
You just found the blood on -- We have the

02:10:00
point. Now, can you deal with that, Mr. Hendrie,
please? Each injury or cause of injury is

02:10:09
different, depending on the circumstances.
Yes, I would have expected to see traces of

02:10:14
blood on the other deceased. However, I did
not record that. That does not mean it was

02:10:20
not there. We can take a look at the photographs.
I've examined them on many occasions and I

02:10:33
wasn't able to find what we're talking about.
But we have your answer and I don't wish to

02:10:39
comment. But I should like to show you, nonetheless,
three photographs in the time that I have

02:10:46
at my disposal. I'll be able to get through
three. Did you see the body of this particular

02:10:52
man? It is Racak 2, tab Yes, Your Honour.
I'm interested in knowing whether he saw him

02:11:32
on this photograph where the bodies are separate
or on this other photograph where the bodies

02:11:37
are grouped together? In the first photograph,
they are a good seven or eight metres apart.

02:11:44
May we see that photograph, please. Is that
the photograph you looked at, this particular

02:11:54
scene, rather? Your Honour, it's difficult
to see the photograph on the screen. May I

02:12:06
have a look at the -- Yes, look at it. The
photograph shows the position of the bodies

02:12:18
when I first saw them. This next photograph,
may we see that one too? And they're all together

02:12:29
on that one. Now, which photograph corresponds
to the actual state of affairs as it was?

02:13:15
Can you help, Mr. Hendrie, or not? I'm trying
to recall the actual photograph that I took,

02:13:33
Your Honour. If you can't, say so. I -- I
believe that the photograph that I took is

02:13:47
marked 7614, but I'd have to check my records,
sir. Sir, if I may refer you to photograph

02:14:20
732399. If somebody could find that. Mr. Ryneveld,
do you think you can help us with that? Yes,

02:14:58
Your Honour. 399? Yes, sir. Yes. Right here.
Sir -- Yes. Your Honour, this photograph shows

02:15:25
the scene from a different angle, and I can
confirm that I did take this photograph, and

02:15:31
it shows the bodies as I did see them. It
shows the KLA soldier who was escorting us

02:15:37
and two of my colleagues and several of the
civilian population. So that is separate from

02:15:43
the other bodies. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic,
that seems to have the point. Mr. Hendrie,

02:15:52
I have just one more question pertaining to
your first statement. You said that the 13th

02:16:01
body was below the 11th body. It was on the
-- lying on the back with both arms partially

02:16:10
stretched out. Can you explain this a bit
further? Yes or no. Your Honour, I believe

02:16:27
the photograph would probably assist more
than my recollection of what I saw. I don't

02:16:40
have the time. And, Your Honours, on this
witness's second statement, on page 1. Mr.

02:16:51
Hendrie, you said the following: I was told
that the KLA had removed the bodies of the

02:16:59
soldiers before the forces of VJ and MUP had
arrived." And then you added the following:

02:17:07
"They did so in order to prevent the dead
bodies from being publicly shown and used

02:17:16
for propaganda purposes." This is what you
were told; is that right? That's correct,

02:17:21
Your Honour. And you remember that the person
who told you this was a member of the KLA;

02:17:33
is that right? My recollection, sir, is that
it was reported to me by one of my team who

02:17:48
had been informed by a member of the KLA that
that was the case. But you say here that this

02:18:04
information was given directly to you by somebody
who was a member of the KLA. This is what

02:18:09
your statement reflects. Sir, I don't believe
that my statement actually reflects that statement.

02:18:39
Mr. Tapuskovic, let us move on. We can in
fact read what the statement says. I'm not

02:18:48
insisting, Your Honour. Thank you. I'm just
interested in the following: Your second statement

02:18:59
pertaining to Orahovac, page 5. Do you want
these photographs any more? Do you want the

02:19:05
photographs? No. No. All right. They can be
taken away. We must try and finish this witness.

02:19:13
Mr. Hendrie, here you speak of some of the
information you had regarding Orahovac, and

02:19:23
as you say here, you heard that Serb residents
of the town were systematically arrested and

02:19:33
that the detained include men, women and children.
And then you allegedly learned that these

02:19:40
missing persons had been killed by the KLA
and that there were about 40 of them. Who

02:19:49
gave you this information? I interviewed a
number of the civilian members of the population

02:19:55
of Orahovac reporting missing relatives and
friends. My last question: You say here that:

02:20:12
"I was also informed that many of the KLA
members involved in the initial detention

02:20:18
of the civilian population were members of
the local KLA village or town defence unit."

02:20:27
So that means that those were civilians. They
were what is known as village guards or watches.

02:20:44
I can't say whether the members of the KLA
involved were actually civilians or true soldiers.

02:20:51
I just described it as was described to me.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hendrie. Thank you,

02:21:12
Your Honours. Mr. May. Now what is it? Microphone
for Mr. Milosevic, please. Microphone. Well,

02:21:22
the English version is here, and what amicus
just claimed can be found here. It says here:

02:21:31
... before the arrival of VJ MUP forces. This
was done in order to prevent the case from

02:21:38
being displayed and being used --" Yes, we
can read. And then: I am unable to recall

02:21:44
how I came to be told this information or
the identity of the person who supplied the

02:21:50
information. However, I do remember that the
source of the information was supposed to

02:21:56
have been an UCK member." Yes. We can read
that. Yes, Mr. Ryneveld. Very briefly. I am

02:22:06
conscious of the time. Three very quick areas.
Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld: Sir, much has

02:22:11
been made during cross-examination about whether
or not the bodies in the gully were brought

02:22:18
to that location, and you've given your -- your
answer and told the Court some of the reasons

02:22:28
that -- from which you derived that impression.
Did you, in the course of your examination,

02:22:33
also make any observations about the clothing
and any bullet holes in clothing in relation

02:22:39
to wounds? Yes, sir. And how, if at all, did
that compare and how, if at all, did that

02:22:47
assist you in your conclusion? Where the injuries
were actually on the torso or arms or legs,

02:23:00
the damage to the body corresponded to the
damage in the clothing and the corresponding

02:23:07
blood. All right. Second point: In your experience,
sir, if a person is killed outright and the

02:23:16
heart stops pumping, do you expect to see
more bleeding or less bleeding? There would

02:23:24
be less, sir. All right. About the issue of
the drying of blood, you've said it depends

02:23:34
on circumstances. Would the depth of the pool
of blood be one of those circumstances? It

02:23:40
could be, yes, sir. Would the temperature
this is 15th or 16th January be a factor?

02:23:48
It would be, sir, yes. In your statement,
did you notice frost or snow on any of the

02:23:54
bodies? Yes, sir. And in your experience,
might that also provide drying or provide

02:24:01
reliquidation of the blood? It could delay
the drying of the blood, yes. Finally, there

02:24:13
was questioning about whether you would expect
to find blood on adjacent bodies. Assuming

02:24:24
that the bodies are upright when shot, in
other words point of impact, that's when the

02:24:32
spray or blood would be, while they're upright;
correct? That's what I would expect, yes.

02:24:38
And subsequently when the bodies fall together,
if they were together, would you necessarily

02:24:44
expect the blood spray to be on the bodies
lying adjacent? No, sir. Thank you. Mr. Hendrie,

02:24:56
that concludes your evidence. Thank you for
coming to the International Tribunal to give

02:25:02
it. You are free to go. Thank you, Your Honour.
The witness withdrew] The next witness is

02:25:49
Mr. Jemini, please. Your Honour, we're back
-- there is going to be further Racak evidence

02:26:02
but, logistically, it hasn't been possible
to have it all together at the same time.

02:26:08
Although there's a slightly better scale map
in the relevant binder, it may be that the

02:26:15
Chamber would be happier continuing to use
the atlas for basic geography because the

02:26:23
Chamber has become familiar with it. I'll
lay this atlas at page 10 on the overhead

02:26:32
projector, or have that done. The Chamber
will see that Celine, which features in the

02:26:41
indictment in respect of deportation rather
than specifically in respect of killings,

02:26:46
I think paragraph 63 or thereabouts but I'll
come to that if necessary in due course, that

02:26:55
Celine lies south-east of Bela Crkva and is
to be found on page 10 at box K22. Again,

02:27:05
waiting for the witness to come in and using
the time, unfortunately we don't have an usher

02:27:15
to deal with it. Your Honour will probably
recall that there are several overhead photographs

02:27:26
of Bela Crkva. Perhaps inevitably none of
them actually is taken in the direction of

02:27:34
Celine, but I can explain by reference to
Exhibit 157 where Celine may be found and

02:27:40
that will help the process of orientation.
First of all, on the map, it's page 10, box

02:27:50
K22, Celine south-east of Bela Crkva. And
worth noting, there are roads, the red roads,

02:27:58
coming from the north, the west, the south;
several roads into the village. They feature

02:28:10
-- Yes. Yes. Let the witness come in. The
witness entered court] Let the witness take

02:28:45
the declaration. I solemnly declare that I
will speak the truth, the whole truth, and

02:28:54
nothing but the truth. If you'd like to take
a seat. AGIM JEMINI Witness answered through

02:29:04
interpreter] Examined by Mr. Nice: Your full
name, please, sir. Agim Jemini. Mr. Jemini,

02:29:15
did you make a statement to investigators
of the Office of the Prosecutor in Tirana

02:29:22
on the 17th of July of 1999? Did you come
to this Tribunal some days ago, and did you,

02:29:31
before a presiding officer of the -- appointed
by the Registrar, testify -- attest to the

02:29:40
accuracy of that statement on the 3rd of June
on which day you also provided a short addendum

02:29:47
making corrections and amplifications to your
statement? Yes. Mr. Jemini, before you came

02:30:01
in, I'd started the process of assisting the
Judges with matters of geography, so I'm picking

02:30:12
up a story part way through and there's no
need for you to say anything except if I get

02:30:17
things wrong. May I lay on the overhead projector
what is Exhibit 157 from the Bela Crkva binder,

02:30:25
first of all. I think there are a couple matters
of geography that I'll draw to the Chamber's

02:30:38
attention on this to save time. The village
of Celine is off to the left on this photograph.

02:30:50
If we can now focus on -- that's probably
all I need ask at this stage. There are other

02:31:01
questions I'm going to ask in relation to
this photograph for the next witness. The

02:31:07
witness, Your Honour, produces two exhibits.
Can we distribute them, please. Photographs.

02:31:20
I produce them now. It will make more sense
of the summary once I read it; that is, the

02:31:28
summary of his witness statement. Your Honours,
some understanding of the immediate geography

02:31:40
of the house in which the witness hid is necessary.
I suspect that, although he may be inclined

02:31:50
to help us with more detail, survive without
knowing the full complexity, but if we do

02:31:58
need more detail, there are more photographs
available. If we can look at the photographs

02:32:03
in order, laying them on the overhead projector,
please. They should have exhibit numbers.

02:32:09
Certainly, yes. Exhibit 260. For both photographs?
Thank you. Can we can lay one of the first

02:32:19
-- can we lay a colour one, please, on the
overhead projector. Take them both. The first

02:32:21
one -- put it on the overhead projector, please.
Yes. This shows the view from the window of

02:32:51
a partially-completed building, one of, I
think, five in the family compound occupied

02:32:59
by this witness. The white building ahead
is, I think, another building in the compound.

02:33:07
But of more significance is the brick -- they're
all brick, but the exposed brick building

02:33:14
in the foreground which has balconies to it
and in which soldiers were stationed during

02:33:28
the attack on this village. The witness, from
his vantage point, roughly where the cameraman

02:33:35
is, being able to overhear what was said by
soldiers in the building next door. The next

02:33:46
photograph, please. We're now looking back
from the opposite side of that compound, towards

02:34:00
the house from which the witness was viewing
things and in which he was hiding. It is the

02:34:07
top exposed square window opening immediately
under the roof of that building in which he

02:34:15
was positioned and from which he was, in due
course, to see the death deaths of members

02:34:23
of his family. The building to the left of
this photograph, the white building, is another

02:34:30
building within the compound. But as I say,
it may be that detailed local geography is

02:34:36
not required because matters are adequately
explained in the witness statement and summary.

02:34:43
But, Your Honour, I'll ask the witness if
I've adequately dealt with those photographs

02:34:48
and, if so, may they then become an exhibit.
Mr. Jemini, have I adequately summarised and

02:34:55
it is a summary the effect of those photographs?
Yes. The Chamber will probably have noted,

02:35:08
and if not, may I remind it, that there is
in this witness's statement a paragraph at

02:35:18
page 3 of the statement where the witness
gives an account of what he overheard from

02:35:30
the adjoining house. The statement is, of
course, inevitably to some degree a summary

02:35:38
of what he overheard, and having checked this
morning, the essence of it is accurate. But

02:35:45
it is to some degree the essence, and it may
be that the Chamber would prefer the passage

02:35:52
that starts: "About p.m. that afternoon..."
and ending at the following paragraph a short

02:36:00
passage to be given live by the witness rather
than simply read from the statement. I would

02:36:07
-- Yes. In which case, with the Chamber's
leave, I will now turn to the summary of the

02:36:18
statement -- We ought to get the statement
exhibited. May we have an exhibit number.

02:36:24
Exhibit 217 and 217A for the redacted version.
That, of course, incorporates the addendum,

02:36:40
I trust. And if the usher would be good enough
to put the atlas back onto the overhead projector

02:36:51
so that the area can be viewed by those watching.
With the -- no, not the overhead photograph,

02:36:58
the atlas. I'll hand it in. Here it comes.
If the usher would be good enough to put the

02:37:26
atlas on the overhead projector, please, where
my thumb -- and if the audio-visual unit would

02:37:34
focus on the immediate area of Celine and
Bela Crkva. The

02:37:51
statement of this witness records that, now
40, having lived in the village of Celine

02:38:01
all his life with his family, his house was
located in a compound of a total of five houses,

02:38:09
three of which, including his, were only partly
built at the time. The Serb offensive, in

02:38:16
his description, was in three phases, of which
the first phase occurred at 5.00 on the morning

02:38:25
of 25th of March when the village was surrounded
with tanks, armoured vehicles, and Pragas.

02:38:33
There was, at the time, no KLA presence in
the village and none of the villagers had

02:38:42
any obvious reason to leave. At about half
past five, the Serb forces started to shell

02:38:51
and shoot at the village without warning.
It appeared at that time they were trying

02:38:57
to scare villagers rather than to aim at them.
Elderly, women, children, and some men left

02:39:08
their homes and collected in open areas within
the village which they were unable to leave

02:39:13
at the time because it was surrounded. Younger
men, fearing they might be targets, decided

02:39:22
to hide rather than to gather together with
the larger groups. And the witness, with his

02:39:31
cousin Isuf, hid in the roof cavity of the
incomplete house that I've already shown to

02:39:38
you in the photographs. That top level was
a level generally unused and he was able to

02:39:46
conceal himself within it, being afforded
a view from that window space of a large part

02:39:57
of the village. Later that morning, a large
number of foot soldiers entered the village.

02:40:07
The uniforms he's able to describe on page
2 of his statement were of green/brown camouflage

02:40:17
uniforms bearing the white double-headed eagle
insignia, those in command wearing dark green

02:40:26
beret-style hats, the soldiers wearing pointed
Partizan-style hats. At about 9.30, a number

02:40:38
of soldiers entered the yard of his compound,
shot his dog, and started looting the houses,

02:40:45
removing valuables. They also removed satellite
dishes. Two soldiers who, from what he could

02:40:54
overhear, may have been the commanders of
the offensive took up positions on the second

02:41:02
floor of that adjoining exposed-brick built
house that I drew to your attention in the

02:41:08
photographs. Additionally, a number of soldiers
took up positions in the house in which he

02:41:16
was hiding but underneath him and from which
they would have had a good view of the village.

02:41:24
At about 10.00, the village school was set
on fire, and I think burnt down, and throughout

02:41:31
the day, he was able to see soldiers looting
and setting fire to the houses of the village.

02:41:38
Again, they took satellite dishes. Can we
now turn in the evidence of the witness himself,

02:41:49
and at page 3 of the statement. Mr. Jemini,
were you, from your position in the house,

02:42:04
able to hear in general conversation between
the people in the next-door house? Just yes

02:42:12
or no. Yes. Your Honour, I should have said
that the statement deals with some of the

02:42:20
call-signs, Commander 444, and the use of
special codes, but the Chamber can read that

02:42:28
in detail if it needs to. Mr. Jemini, did
you, at about 5.00 in that afternoon, hear

02:42:36
something in particular? And if so and in
your own time, would you tell us what you

02:42:41
heard, please. Yes. We heard a radio conversation
where the question was what the situation

02:42:57
is like in Celine and the reply was the situation
is good. How is it? Is it as well as in Racak?

02:43:04
No, it's twice as much as in Racak. At that
moment, scared as we were having heard this

02:43:16
conversation, we gathered that the number
of dead was twice as much as in Racak, approximately

02:43:21
about a hundred dead. That was the conversation
which we overheard coming via radio communication.

02:43:31
Later on, at about 7.00, did you hear something
else? Yes. ... We heard that the offensive

02:43:51
at Celine ought to stop, and their commanders
agreed that the offensive should stop. And

02:43:58
they stopped the offensive at 7.00 in the
afternoon -- or in the evening. When you say

02:44:04
it was to stop, who said it should stop? Was
it somebody in the house or was it somebody

02:44:08
over a radio? No, it was a command that came
from a distance, from remotely, from Prizren

02:44:20
where the main command was located and which
was in charge of the offensive at Celine,

02:44:28
whilst the local commanders in the village
agreed to the order that the offensive be

02:44:35
stopped. I return to the summary from which
I am reading, with some amplification. Soldiers

02:44:47
stayed at points throughout the village that
day, although most of them left that night.

02:44:53
And at about 8.00 on the morning of the following
day, his parents and three other family members

02:45:02
returned to the village from where they had
been in hiding. He spoke to them. And since

02:45:12
people thought that this, the end of what
the witness would be describe as phase 1,

02:45:17
was the end of the attack generally, they
all decided to stay in the village. However,

02:45:24
very shortly afterwards, the second phase
began with further military units, this time

02:45:32
thought by the witness to be special police
forces, approached the village from the main

02:45:38
road. And as the Chamber will understand,
the main road is, of course, the road running

02:45:42
north-west/south-east, and to the south of
the railway line until just to the east of

02:45:52
Celine. So that these soldiers were approaching
from that road. There were differences between

02:46:06
these and the uniform of the first soldiers.
They had coloured ribbons on their sleeves.

02:46:19
And as we can see at page 4 of the statement,
they had shaved heads, no hats, beards. And

02:46:28
the impression obtained by the witness was
that they may have been Arkan's men. His mother

02:46:44
and father, despite being urged by him to
leave the village, remained. His mother, indeed,

02:46:50
insisted on baking bread, which in due course
was to draw her to the attention of a troop

02:46:57
carrier who yelled obscenities at her but
on this occasion drove by in the direction

02:47:04
of Velika Krusha and Krushe e Madhe, which
I think we can see just at the bottom of the

02:47:12
screen. His relations went and hid in a basement.
He returned, did the witness, to the same

02:47:19
roof space, and within half an hour, at about
9.00, there were suddenly 200 to 300 soldiers

02:47:27
in the village with coloured ribbons and so
on on their sleeves. These soldiers went from

02:47:35
house to house, and at about 9.30, they entered
his compound and searched every house. When

02:47:42
they reached the second floor of the house
in which he was hiding, they took up positions,

02:47:47
apparently guarding their colleague soldiers
who were there. He saw about eight soldiers

02:47:55
enter the house in which his parents were
hiding in the basement, bring them out and

02:48:01
stand them in the yard. He heard the soldiers
ask his father and his uncle Shaip if they

02:48:10
had money. His father, his cousin Muharrem
and his cousin's wife were then taken to the

02:48:18
houses in which they had money in order to
recover money in a substantial amount, which

02:48:25
was then, of course, stolen from them. Those
relations were brought back to the witness's

02:48:34
mother and uncle. He saw the soldiers lead
all five to a gap between the two houses,

02:48:41
and he saw them all shot, falling immediately
to the ground. A little later, a truck drove

02:48:54
into the compound and further looting occurred
of property from the houses. And throughout

02:49:05
the rest of that day, the witness observed
soldiers going around the village, burning

02:49:10
houses, using flame-throwers for that purpose
and only leaving the newer houses, such as

02:49:16
the one in which he was hiding, which were
more difficult to burn, intact. Thus it was

02:49:24
that his house and the neighbouring house
where the commanders were or had been located

02:49:30
were not burnt. They also heard, he and his
cousin, the sound of automatic gunfire from

02:49:39
time to time. The soldiers stayed in the village
until about 1.00 the next morning, and as

02:49:47
soon as they left, the witness and his cousin
left the village, not even feeling that they

02:49:54
could check on the bodies of relations whose
fate they all-too-perfectly understood. He

02:50:04
made his way to Zrze, which the Chamber will
remember is to the west of Bela Crkva, the

02:50:14
north-west of Celine, and on the way and one
can see the logic of this if the Chamber recalls

02:50:23
the site at the junction of the streambed
and the railway immediately south of Bela

02:50:32
Crkva on the way, he saw a large number of
human corpses there at that junction of the

02:50:42
stream and the railway line. That, then, in
this witness's account ended the second phase.

02:50:55
Having arrived at Zrze at about 5.00 that
day, they rested and returned to Celine two

02:51:04
nights later not the four in the statement,
that's been corrected in the addendum and

02:51:12
then he with other villagers would spend the
days away from the village, returning at night

02:51:20
to bury the dead. In the course of this period
of time, Serb police together, it would appear,

02:51:31
with Gypsies visited the village regularly,
looting houses and continuing to burn property.

02:51:41
And so it was over the next 30 nights that
this witness, as I think I explained, the

02:51:54
mayor of his village for many years, or for
several years, so it was that he and others

02:52:01
returned at night to bury some 78 victims
of this attack. Of these 78, some 18 bodies

02:52:13
were burnt and carbonised beyond perhaps recognition
in many cases. Does this appear on the schedule,

02:52:27
the victims? Yes. It's in his statement -- at
least I hope it's in his statement. No, I

02:52:33
meant to the indictment. Is this a schedule
in the indictment or not? Not. For the reasons

02:52:39
I've given, that Celine is being dealt with
as a deportation site and although, of course,

02:52:45
it's all integral to the -- if I'm wrong about
that, I'll correct the position. Although

02:52:49
it's all integral to really what is a very
small area, as we can see from the overhead

02:52:55
picture, notwithstanding the awfulness of
these events, he might not have been called

02:53:01
as a witness but for the very important evidence
that he can give about the conversations that

02:53:07
were overheard. But I'll just check that he
-- that the victims are not in the schedule

02:53:21
to the indictment. Very well. We will adjourn
now. Mr. Jemini, we're going to adjourn for

02:53:28
20 minutes. Would you come back then to conclude
your evidence. Remember not to speak to anybody

02:53:37
about your evidence until it's over, and that
does include the members of the Prosecution

02:53:42
team. If the registrar would come up, please.
Yes. We'll adjourn.

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews